What did Burke and the Old Whigs believe? They defended tradition, the established church, monarchy, and aristocracy—against liberals (New Whigs) like Richard Price, Charles James Fox, Priestly, Paine and Jefferson, who favored reason, equality and religious disestablishment.
/2
Old Whigs did uphold the rights of Parliament against what they saw as the excessive claims of the king. Their heroes were common lawyers such as Fortescue, Coke, Selden, and Hale, who supported the tradition of parliamentary rights and a balance between king and parliament.
/3
But none of these Old Whigs were liberals. They were conservatives supporting what they saw as the traditional balance of power between king and parliament.
Burke wrote a book (“An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs”) making exactly this argument.
/4
So no—Burke never did and never would have supported anything remotely like today’s liberalism.
And in his own day, when he saw that his Whig party was heading in the direction of Lockean liberalism, he broke with his party and its new ideology.
/5
If you want to read more about the tradition of English conservatism that Burke was upholding when he rejected New Whig liberalism, take a look here:
This was impossible in classical Marxism, because Marx and Engels regarded the capitalists and their allies—that is, the elites—as the oppressors.
2/
But after WWI, neo-Marxists devised a more flexible theory that allowed any powerful social structure—not just capitalism—to be regarded as the oppressor.
In this way, racial and gender oppression came to be at least as important as oppression on the basis of economic class.
3/
No. Nationalism is derived from biblical political theology. It is based on the Scriptural belief that humans beings and their institutions are diverse and see the world from divergent perspectives.
For this reason, every community and nation must be responsible for its own path to God.
There is no such thing as a human institution that is competent to dictate political doctrine to all mankind—or one that can do so without becoming a tyranny.
/2
The “ideal” in Scripture is not world government. It is localism.
/3
The biggest problem with this analysis is that it tends to see a revived (“post-liberal”) conservatism as a basically Catholic phenomenon.
/2
Every connection with Catholicism is spelled out. But when Jews such as @oren_cass and @josh_hammer are discussed as leading (“post-liberal) conservative figures, somehow the fact that they are Jews doesn’t come up.
/3
The "spirit" is something real in all human beings--what the Bible calls "ruah" and Plato calls "thymos."
It's what allows us to be angry and sad, to want things and to strive for truth and to be loyal and connected to our family and nation and to stand in awe before God.
/1
But it means little to "be spiritual." Human beings are all, by nature, "spiritual."
/2
The question is what we do with this spirit that is inside us:
Do we use it to accomplish important and good things, or evil? Do we use it puff ourselves full of vanity, or to reach beyond ourselves and become part of a larger family, congregation, and nation?
/3
There was always a problem with the academic study of “classical antiquity,” which was built around the assumption that the West was descended from Greece and Rome—but not from Israel and the Bible. nationalreview.com/news/princeton…
This was an “Enlightenment” theory and it was a nasty one. It was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian too.
But the destruction of Classics department at Princeton, where I went to school is a shameful thing.
I have always thought Classics students should study Hebrew alongside Greek and Latin.